Equality of opportunity versus equality of results
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (May 2008) |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007) |
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of results are two competing theories of an equality outcome in a just society. They are closely related to the concepts of negative rights and positive rights.
[edit] Equality of opportunity
Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome, a more socialistic philosophy, means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else. For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.
The legal consequences of this dichotomy relate to the role of the government. Traditionally, the government is thought to ensure equality of opportunity by its inaction -- through "negative rights", such as allowing everyone to speak freely, practice their religion, and keep their property safe from the government, irrespective of whether they are a member of a group that might be favored or disfavored. Likewise, the government is thought to ensure equality of outcome through its action -- such as the creation of social welfare programs for the poor, affirmative action for certain minorities, etc.
Equality of opportunity and outcome are themselves somewhat open to interpretation -- equality of opportunity is sometimes derided with the joke that "X is a free country, in which every man, rich or poor, has the right to buy an elephant". Obviously, the poor man cannot exercise this so-called "right". This, however, ignores the fact that with equality of opportunity, everyone has the chance to become rich; but this argument in turn ignores the fact that it is impossible for everyone in the country to actually be rich all at once, and thus opportunities must cease to be available once some finite number of rich people exist. Arguments of this type are typical when theories of equality are being discussed.
Similarly, in the cake example, above, one could argue whether an equal-sized slice is the "outcome" or whether those who are hungrier should get larger slices, so that in the end everyone is equally sated. This would appear to reward people for becoming fat.
